4 ms·

I wouldn't want to ascribe too much method to this madness, but the increases for defense, homeland security and immigration control in the 2026 budget request,

I wouldn't want to ascribe too much method to this madness, but the increases for defense, homeland security and immigration control in the 2026 budget request, combined with a desire to be seen as cutting the budget rather than increasing spending, could have set the extreme civilian costcutting requirements. What the administration is preparing for that requires raising defense spending to one trillion is beyond me. Actually it's not.

tomrod 1y ago
It's not madness, it's political targeting in excess of good governance.
squigz 1y ago
> What the administration is preparing for that requires raising defense spending to one trillion is beyond me. Actually it's not. Why do you think America is suddenly 'preparing' for something? Hasn't defence spending steadily increased for quite a long time now?
- tomrod 1y ago
  The Mad King Trump wants all the trappings of North Korea, with military parades and silencing of political dissent. Ignores Congress (impoundment), ignores SCOTUS (Abrego Garcia), corruptly enriches himself from his position (Meme coin), cuts social programs (numerous), encourages stochastic terrorism (numerous), and expresses sentiments fully divorced from reality or otherwise distracting from heinous and corrupt actions.
  - deleted 1y ago
    [deleted]
  - blooalien 1y ago
    > ... "corruptly enriches himself from his position (Meme coin)" ... Hey, give the guy a break. This could very well be his last chance to enrich himself on the "Trump brand" before it all burns down around him. :P
- whatshisface 1y ago
  >Hasn't defence spending steadily increased for quite a long time now? Not as a percentage of GDP. https://www.macrotrends.net/global-metrics/countries/usa/united-states/military-spending-defense-budget https://www.macrotrends.net/global-metrics/countries/usa/uni... The administration has expressed a desire to destroy several other countries over the last year. Iran, Denmark's autonomous territory Greenland and Canada stand out for being explicitly named, and China for being a career target of important advisors. Iran out of all these is singled out by congressional support and a history of military action in the region. In conclusion, the administration most likely wants to invade Iran. https://www.reuters.com/world/trump-says-there-will-be-bombing-if-iran-does-not-make-nuclear-deal-2025-03-30/ https://www.reuters.com/world/trump-says-there-will-be-bombi...
  - zahlman 1y ago
    >...expressed a desire to destroy several other countries... Canada stand out for being explicitly named A bit of banter about Canada being economically or political subordinate to the US is not even remotely in the same ballpark as expressing a desire to destroy Canada. Even the literal meaning of what was obviously a joke is not remotely in the same ballpark. This is the same kind of thing I've been hearing my entire life; it means no more than the old adage "when America sneezes, Canada catches a cold". I say this as a left-wing Canadian, btw. Regarding Iran, the headline of your source already contradicts you, as does the article. Bombing is not invasion, and a threat made to get what you actually want (a "nuclear deal") is not expressing desire to execute the threat (it is in fact explicitly saying that you want something else). Is this bad? Sure. Is it an unusual level of saber rattling (especially from someone who didn't come across as much of a military interventionist in his first term)? I suppose so. But it is not anything like "an expressed desire to destroy other countries". It is not warmongering. All the recent headlines about "not ruling out" various military actions are just decades-old MAD policy applied to conventional warfare. > Not as a percentage of GDP. Right, so by your own source: * Spending as a percentage of GDP recently peaked in 2010 (in the middle of Obama's first term); * Spending as a percentage of GDP recently bottomed out in 2017-2018 (in the middle of Trump's first term); * If we apply the 2010 percentage to 2022, the US would have already been at 1.25T in spending - while this thread is expressing concern because of approaching the 1T mark. Notwithstanding the import shock, US GDP has been recently growing rather impressively, too - see e.g. https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/GDP/ https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/GDP/ .) Also, the implication of your phrasing is that an increase as a percentage of GDP is happening or will happen soon, but you left out any evidence for that. I very much don't like that the US spends this much on the military (about 3x as much as China, next on the leaderboard); but it's not historically out of line, nor does it look like an indication of trouble afoot.
- singleshot_ 1y ago
  I'd be a little more concerned about offense spending than defense spending with this guy.
graemep 1y ago
> What the administration is preparing for that requires raising defense spending to one trillion is beyond me. A cold war with China. Everything they are doing is based around that expectation.
- whatshisface 1y ago
  Cutting national science foundation funding by 55% doesn't match with a cold war against a peer adversary, so I'm leaning towards Iran being the imagined target.
  - bryanrasmussen 1y ago
    Iran might be a sensible adversary in some reasoning, so that's out. How about exactly what they've said - a multi front war with Greenland, Panama and maybe Canada?
    - graemep 1y ago
      Firstly, who said war with Greenland? They want to buy Greenland, This is not new and the US has proposed this many times and has considered it many more: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proposed_United_States_acquisition_of_Greenland https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proposed_United_States_acquisi... Leaving that aside, the US is hugely more powerful than Denmark, Panama and Canada combined. If could walk over all three right now - no need for increased military expenditure. Iran has been preparing to fight the US, and will probably have fanatics who will fight on after defeat of the military creating an Iraq like situation - but AFAIK the direction of expenditure is wrong for that as preparing for that would require spending on counter insurgency and boots on the ground. There would also be lots of support from other countries in the region for that. The ONLY country that is a peer rival to the US is China. Other nuclear powers are probably able to deter the US, but only China can actually fight it in a conventional war.
  - concinds 1y ago
    Trump has embedded so many China hawks in analytical/natsec/fopo roles deep in the bureaucracy that even if he turned into a complete dove, the US would likely still enter a new Cold War through sheer institutional inertia alone. They’re cutting the NSF because they’re high on their own supply and misunderstand the causes of US dominance, it’s a poor indicator of their intentions.

tomrod 1y ago

It's not madness, it's political targeting in excess of good governance.

squigz 1y ago

> What the administration is preparing for that requires raising defense spending to one trillion is beyond me. Actually it's not. Why do you think America is suddenly 'preparing' for something? Hasn't defence spending steadily increased for quite a long time now?

tomrod 1y ago
The Mad King Trump wants all the trappings of North Korea, with military parades and silencing of political dissent. Ignores Congress (impoundment), ignores SCOTUS (Abrego Garcia), corruptly enriches himself from his position (Meme coin), cuts social programs (numerous), encourages stochastic terrorism (numerous), and expresses sentiments fully divorced from reality or otherwise distracting from heinous and corrupt actions.
- deleted 1y ago
  [deleted]
- blooalien 1y ago
  > ... "corruptly enriches himself from his position (Meme coin)" ... Hey, give the guy a break. This could very well be his last chance to enrich himself on the "Trump brand" before it all burns down around him. :P
whatshisface 1y ago
>Hasn't defence spending steadily increased for quite a long time now? Not as a percentage of GDP. https://www.macrotrends.net/global-metrics/countries/usa/united-states/military-spending-defense-budget https://www.macrotrends.net/global-metrics/countries/usa/uni... The administration has expressed a desire to destroy several other countries over the last year. Iran, Denmark's autonomous territory Greenland and Canada stand out for being explicitly named, and China for being a career target of important advisors. Iran out of all these is singled out by congressional support and a history of military action in the region. In conclusion, the administration most likely wants to invade Iran. https://www.reuters.com/world/trump-says-there-will-be-bombing-if-iran-does-not-make-nuclear-deal-2025-03-30/ https://www.reuters.com/world/trump-says-there-will-be-bombi...
- zahlman 1y ago
  >...expressed a desire to destroy several other countries... Canada stand out for being explicitly named A bit of banter about Canada being economically or political subordinate to the US is not even remotely in the same ballpark as expressing a desire to destroy Canada. Even the literal meaning of what was obviously a joke is not remotely in the same ballpark. This is the same kind of thing I've been hearing my entire life; it means no more than the old adage "when America sneezes, Canada catches a cold". I say this as a left-wing Canadian, btw. Regarding Iran, the headline of your source already contradicts you, as does the article. Bombing is not invasion, and a threat made to get what you actually want (a "nuclear deal") is not expressing desire to execute the threat (it is in fact explicitly saying that you want something else). Is this bad? Sure. Is it an unusual level of saber rattling (especially from someone who didn't come across as much of a military interventionist in his first term)? I suppose so. But it is not anything like "an expressed desire to destroy other countries". It is not warmongering. All the recent headlines about "not ruling out" various military actions are just decades-old MAD policy applied to conventional warfare. > Not as a percentage of GDP. Right, so by your own source: * Spending as a percentage of GDP recently peaked in 2010 (in the middle of Obama's first term); * Spending as a percentage of GDP recently bottomed out in 2017-2018 (in the middle of Trump's first term); * If we apply the 2010 percentage to 2022, the US would have already been at 1.25T in spending - while this thread is expressing concern because of approaching the 1T mark. Notwithstanding the import shock, US GDP has been recently growing rather impressively, too - see e.g. https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/GDP/ https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/GDP/ .) Also, the implication of your phrasing is that an increase as a percentage of GDP is happening or will happen soon, but you left out any evidence for that. I very much don't like that the US spends this much on the military (about 3x as much as China, next on the leaderboard); but it's not historically out of line, nor does it look like an indication of trouble afoot.
singleshot_ 1y ago
I'd be a little more concerned about offense spending than defense spending with this guy.

graemep 1y ago

> What the administration is preparing for that requires raising defense spending to one trillion is beyond me. A cold war with China. Everything they are doing is based around that expectation.

whatshisface 1y ago
Cutting national science foundation funding by 55% doesn't match with a cold war against a peer adversary, so I'm leaning towards Iran being the imagined target.
- bryanrasmussen 1y ago
  Iran might be a sensible adversary in some reasoning, so that's out. How about exactly what they've said - a multi front war with Greenland, Panama and maybe Canada?
  - graemep 1y ago
    Firstly, who said war with Greenland? They want to buy Greenland, This is not new and the US has proposed this many times and has considered it many more: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proposed_United_States_acquisition_of_Greenland https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proposed_United_States_acquisi... Leaving that aside, the US is hugely more powerful than Denmark, Panama and Canada combined. If could walk over all three right now - no need for increased military expenditure. Iran has been preparing to fight the US, and will probably have fanatics who will fight on after defeat of the military creating an Iraq like situation - but AFAIK the direction of expenditure is wrong for that as preparing for that would require spending on counter insurgency and boots on the ground. There would also be lots of support from other countries in the region for that. The ONLY country that is a peer rival to the US is China. Other nuclear powers are probably able to deter the US, but only China can actually fight it in a conventional war.
- concinds 1y ago
  Trump has embedded so many China hawks in analytical/natsec/fopo roles deep in the bureaucracy that even if he turned into a complete dove, the US would likely still enter a new Cold War through sheer institutional inertia alone. They’re cutting the NSF because they’re high on their own supply and misunderstand the causes of US dominance, it’s a poor indicator of their intentions.